St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-01-06
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE,
The Tax TitIe Iniouitv.

received more fOrcible illustration than that
afforded by the recent decision rendered by
| the supreme court of Minnesota in the case
of Chauncey against Was.
The facts as stated IN an evening paper are
| briefly as follows: "Cordelia Was had paid
taxes regularly on piece of property in St.
Louis county and held the receipts therefor
| but in one instance there was q failure ON the
paSt of the states officer to mark the property
tax paid Subsequently the state through IFS
! officers, who bad failed TO do their duty, ad-
vertised and sold this property for the same
! tax. already paid. to G. G. Chauncey,' and
| thereafter Chauncey, on the strength of the
alleged title, commenced an action to dispos-
| sesS Cordoba WaaS of her property. This ac-
| ton the supreme court OF the state has sus-
! tanned, awarding the property to Chauncey,
| thus establishing the infamous doctrine that
though citizen may have obeyed every die
| tate of prudence and demand of law the state
| through its officers and its courts may wan
| tonly diveSt that law-abiding citizen Of the
fruits OF his industry and turn the same over
| to the tuX-title vulture in defiance of every
principle of justice, decency or even law, eX
cept such noiety thereof as ernanates from
three out of the five judges of the supreme
court OF Minnesota.
| Judges CGrdozo and Barnard, in the palm
lest days of their malodorous official career,
| in all probability never rendered Il decision
| less in keeping with the simplest dictates of
| honesty, decency and law as understood by
the average court and citizen throughout the
country.
The decisions of the supreme court of Ohio
| upon the Scott law have brought that court
into such disrepute that il is said even Min
nesota judges have been heard TO 4Inark,
tell me the politics of the court and III tell
you what weight to attach to its declslon.''
1t is sincerely to be hoped that the day may
| be far distant when the courts of Ohio will be
| tempted to return the compliment by remark
! ing Of the tex decisions of the supreme courts
| n coll n,r,O ,ad tlh
titles and III tell you what prompted the de-
| cision.'
It is legal truism admitted by every court
in III Union "that q principal is bound by
| the acts OF the agent exercised within the
| scope of his authority also that any act
which the agent by his power-in this case
| the statute-was not authorized to perform is
void. This being established, it follows:
| First-That the state, having an officer author
| lied to receive and receipt for taxes who
| in conformity with law, has received aud re-
| celpted Tor all the taxes due on piece of
| property, is estopped from taking any advan-
tage OF the subsequent error of that official in
fuiling to mark or rredit such property tax
paid upon his books Second-Since the law
only authorized the sale of property for taxes
| due and unpaid at the time of such sale-and
in the,case of Gordeia Was there being no tax
due and unpaid, as even the supreme court
| admitS-it follows that all the acts resulting
in the sale, as well as the deed itself, are null
| and void, and in this view Judges Berry al
| Vanderburgh concur in rendering their mi
| nority decision.
While it is not expected decisions from the
! supreme court of the United States, or of
! other states, will have any weight with the
| mighty (?) intelectS that labored to bring
forth the majority decision in chancery
| against WaSS, it is but just to show that the
views of Judges Berry and Vanderburgh, as
| expressed in the minority opinion, are in
Keeping with honesty and law as interpreted
| By other courts.
In Randall VS.. Daily the supreme court of
Wisconsin decided that "a tax deed can give
| no title to, land where the owner has pre-
viously made payment of the assessed amount
with interest and costs.' See 20 Northwest
ern Reporter, 353.
In Iowa the supreme court, in December
last, decided that it was not even necessary
for the party paying such tax to produce the
receipt. IAN entry on the stub of county
treasurer's tax receipt book, in the absence
of the receipt itself, is primary and sufficient
evidence of the taxes as noted therein, and is
| sufficient to overcome the presumption of
| non-paymeEts raised by g tax deed" See 80
| Northwestern Reporter, g.
The United States circuit court for the dis
| trict of Maine, in the case of Hodgdon VS..
Burleigh, Federal Reporter, Ill, decided
| that IA tax is void unless all the taxes under
/ which the sale is made are valid" Yet the
| supreme court of Minnesota has decided that
| a sale made where there are no taxes due, or
even levied, will deprive the owner of his
property.
| The United States circuit court for the dis
| trict of Minnesota, il CoPGon vs.. Shearer, 3
| Federal Reporter, 105, is q little nearer home
| in Minnesots IL tax deel is not prima facie
evidence of tide unless it be first shown that
| the county auditor had authority to make the
deed" And, in the case of Cordelia Was, no
tax being due, the auditor could not lawfully
| sell or deed the land
| fad fafa
| LAX sales must be conducted in conformity
with law and with entire fairness State VS..
| Maxwell, Wallace, 269. IF any Of the stat
utory requirements are neglected no title
passes" McCung VS.. Ross, 5 Wheaton, ll6;
| Raukendorf, VS.. Taylor. Peters, $40;
| Thatcher VS.. Powell, Wheaton, 119.
| 1t certainly is not in conformity with law
| or entire fairness to sell land for taxes when
| no tax is due, and in such case it follows the
| greatest, the most substantial requisite to the
legality thereof was neglected in the sale by
| the state of the Was property, to-wit, that
some tax should have been due. "Where an
! individual claims land under q tax sale he
| must show that the substantial requisites of
| the law have been observed" United States
supreme court in Raukendorff vs.. Taylor, 4
| Peters, $40, and Boardman vs.. Reed, 6 Peters,
SIS.
This c. G. Chauncey could not and cannot
! show.
So much for the decisions which could be
| enlarged al infnitum. What reason could
| the court advance for arriving at the views
| expressed in Chauncey VS.. WaSs? Is there
any law of this state that by its terms says "a
pei son who has once paid a tax due on prop
! erty shall thereafter be despoiled thereof by
| sale of the property for the selfsame taXY' If
| So is there any one-outside of the majority
of the supreme bench of Minuesota-who
supposes the lawmakers intended to enact a
statute so contrary to every principle of law,
so repugnant to every sense Of honor? What,
then, in the light of the decisions of other
courts, was the duly of your supreme benc
| in the premises? Let US see:
! 1.-The court ascertainS the meaning from
the words and subject matter to which the
statute relates and rostrans its operation
| within narrower limits than literal meaning
| would extend to cases the legislature did not
design to include" Brewer VS.. Blougher, Il
| Peters, United States supreme court, lIS.
And again "a law requiring incompatible
things must be changed to give sense of legis-
| lature.'' Huidekoper VS.. Blougher 3 Cranch
Z. S. Sc.
And still again dubious words ought to be
taken most strongly against the lawmakers -
| q. S. VS.. Hill Cranch Alb.
At no stage of the proceedings resulting in
| the fraudulent sale to Chauncey did the law re-
quire personal notice to be served on Cor
della Was, hence she had nosopportunity to
defend her lawful property rights. Suppose,
| however she had accidentally become aware
of the facts before the sale or deed by the
! auditor, what was her remed - She could
not enjoin the auditor from selling the land
or making deed, since the court following
the rule in such actions must have held:
First-That the tax having been already paid,
the auditor could not lawfully sell the land.
Second-That any sale or deed so made by
the auditor was void and could not constitute
a cloud over the title of Was, hence the suit
must be dismissed, so that no opportunity
would be afforded her to defend her property
huF 10 Il oa1 nr1dh N-r y,
fact she must be debarred the privilege of
defending after the fraudulent sale or con-